This article presents new concepts and practical approaches resulting from the piloting of CASI-F – a common framework for the assessment and management of sustainable innovation (SI). Based on lessons learned from action research carried out in the context of the EU funded CASI project, the article focuses on the meta-analysis of 46 action roadmaps produced with 43 innovators supporting the practical application of CASI-F. The applied methodology helped to demonstrate that a multi-level and multi-actor advice approach promotes a shift towards improved understanding of innovations-related critical issues (barriers, drivers, opportunities and threats) and stakeholders’ relations, as well as their management, thus promoting the sustainable resilience and transformation of socio-technical systems. This paper first reflects on how we arrived to managerial lessons from the actions roadmaps and how could these lessons be used to assess the current state of affairs and potential way forward for European initiatives and instruments promoting sustainable innovation.

Applying text mining and sentiment analysis to EIS parents’ insights on the proposed move of EIS to Otaniemi

All comments and insights gathered through these sources were collectively analysed applying text mining and sentiment analysis (also known as opinion/emotion mining) given the subjectivity of the information and the sensitivity of the subject to survey respondents and blog visitors, and therefore the obvious presence of emotions and sentiments behind the text.

A total of 639 arguments were pulled out from all the above-mentioned information sources and analysed with the Kapiche text mining and analytical tool using additional sentiment identification functionalities. Identified terms and key terms were clustered into most frequent topics (i.e. key issues), the top 5 of which are presented in more details in the following sections and supported by anonymous examples of the most prominent comments submitted by the EIS Community members. The report includes the top 5 strongest topics driving positive and negative sentiment identified in the analysed dataset and provides 3 conclusions and related recommendations.

In recent decades Foresight and other forward-looking activities (FLA) gained ground as a tool of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy. The number of FLA studies is globally rising. To some extent, foresight is governed by context-depended issues; however there are also common features in the objectives, methodology, and recommendations made. Mapping allows codifying and analyzing a bulk of FLA experiences gained worldwide. This in turn will contribute to enhancing performance of such activities and therefore of STI policy as a whole.

The paper provides rationales for Futures Studies mapping, considers related opportunities and challenges, reviews lessons learned from early mapping efforts. It focuses on the large-scale EU-funded mapping project “European Foresight Platform” (EFP). Using this project as illustration, the paper describes mapping routines, the selected indicators of mapped Foresight initiatives, including their objectives, participants, target groups, methodologies, outcomes and recommendations. It discusses the potential and the limitations of particular mapping tools as well as possible applications of gained knowledge. Basing on mapping results, policy-makers, for example, are able to identify gaps to be addressed with relevant policy tools, Mapping also allows Foresight practitioners to develop strategies for further research and shape expert networks for their implementation.

The Foresight wave is growing. Interest in using Foresight exercises to inform policy-making in science, technology, and innovation (STI) is continuing to extend around the world. It now seems safe to say that this is no mere fashion.

This combination of elements is well matched to the challenges currently confronting STI policy. These include increased emphasis on innovation as a tool for competitiveness and sustainability, alongside pressure on government and university budgets, uncertainty about environmental risks and ethical dimensions of new technologies, and a proliferation of opportunities for strategic R&D.

Foresight is liable to be needed more, rather than less, in years to come. If we need Foresight, then we need to learn about Foresight. This means going beyond merely the formal results of Foresight exercises, in terms of what forecasts and analyses of future opportunities and risks have been developed, or what plans have been proposed and priorities targeted. We also need to learn how best to design and deploy Foresight.

Foresight activities are demanding of time and resources, and it is important to ensure that these are well used. We are confronting big challenges, and the quality of Foresight will affect our readiness to address them. One lesson from the last decade or so of Foresight practice is that “one size does not fit all”. Different problems and contexts require different configurations of Foresight approaches. It is necessary to draw lessons not about “the” Foresight method, but about how Foresight approaches and techniques can be tailored to particular countries and circumstances. This means that evaluation of Foresight efforts is not just a matter of examining the efficiency of the activities. Evaluation must also consider their effectiveness in promoting change to meet the challenges confronting us, and it must take into account the creativity exercised in their design. Foresight must be fit for purpose. Simplistic benchmarking, that matches each feature of the programme against similar features in other countries, is not enough. It is important to relate the complex of activities pursued to the specific objectives of the programme. With such an approach to evaluation, the Colombian Technology Foresight Programme (CTFP) provides an excellent opportunity to draw lessons about how Foresight can be introduced and implemented, and what sorts of design challenges need to be tackled if Foresight is to meet the STI challenges.

For this reason, this study proposes the methodological framework and concept of fully-fledged evaluation of a (Foresight) programme as:

…a systematic process aimed at assessing the appropriateness and level of achievement of the programme’s objectives, its performance (using cost-benefit analysis), efficiency of organisational structure (i.e. approaches and methods) and effectiveness of implementation and aftercare. The process should assess the level of capacities and Foresight culture achieved; its national, sub-national and international reach; level of commitment of participants; and novelty and impact of its internal activities (i.e. studies and projects). In addition, with the aim of aligning a Foresight with the implementation environment, the evaluation should try to measure the impact on public and private policies and strategies; agendas of science, technology and innovation (STI) programmes and institutions; consolidation of research groups; consolidation of S&T capacities; and internationalisation of R&D. Finally, a fully-fledged evaluation of Foresight should also identify new products and services; new policy recommendations and research agendas; new processes and skills; new paradigms and visions; and new players.

Here we present the results of thefirst round of theDelphi Survey on the Future Internet.

A total of 235 experts took part in the study. These results have been used for main goal of the EU-funded Towards A Future Internet (TAFI) project: the creation of scenarios about a future internet. Two other major sources were also used to form the scenarios as well as the results of this Delphi Survey First Round: (1) Research on the many trends at a socio-economic level that will influence a future internet and also other projects looking at this subject, such as the Stanford ‘Clean Slate’ project; and (2) A major two-day workshop in September 2009 in Brussels with some 20 external experts, which produced strong debate and helped us to reshape our ideas, in some ways completely.

All of this work has been to put together in an initial analysis, an Interim Report, soon to be released, whose core is a set of early scenarios.

Which is the most important role of the internet TODAY and in the future?

In the second round of this Delphi survey we wish to analyse a series of early scenarios, based on the first round’s results plus the extra socio-economic research and the September 2010 Brussels workshop.

So the Second Round presents five scenarios for you to consider and critique. These may seem to be extensions in particular directions but this is to make them identifiably different so that particular characteristics can be clearly seen, although overlaps may exist while combinations of several scenarios may be preferred.